Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1887-09-01

49, b the -QecIsfOn ONLY goes 10 the
POM, tnat pr cate parties in dealing with the
u q. cam 1T be examined by the House that
ehe PliIcl al does not extend to the debtor him
seIi atd especially 70 the Central Pacific Rail
pau Jompany. which is but q corporation, and
Ine crescent investigation only extends to what
q position 1t has made of the bonds and pro-
n eds OF lands received from the Government
and the money arising from operating its ros6
But there Is no such Limitation in the ruIinr
Says the Court can the rights of the r,ool or
OF its members, o. the rights of the debtor and
OF the creditor Of the debtor, be determined by
the report OF committee, or by an Aet of Con-
gress? If they cannot, what authority has the
House to enter upon this investigation into the
private affairs OF individuals who hold 10 Office
Central Pacific Railroad is corporation in no
way beholden to the United States tor its cor
porate faculties end franchises and not { nat
ural person. canno. affect the question
II Is but an aggregation of natural persons
and Is as much private party IS if its constitu-
euts were united in mere Partnership instead
OF corporation This principal WAS main
tanned IN the railroad tax cases 10 Saw l6S,
and recognized by the Supreme Court at the
argument of the same case on appeal The
bonds issued and the lands granted, as we have
before seen under the authorities cited upon
the completion OF the road, and the specific
ca ming of the road thereafter arising were the
absolute property fthe Central Pacific Railroad
Company. in which the United States had no
legal concern whatever, except far as their
lien by contract covers them There IL no eIe-
nent OF trust, public or otherwise, in the case
as sometimes claimed, except in such sense as
any common carrier, whether by OK team
mule team, horse team, railway or steamship
exercises a pub ic trust, which Is only subject
10 regulation under the police powers OF the
Government, State or national, as the case may
require, That tlere is no element oftr7lst IN the
case Is ably shown by Mr.. Justice Hunt in U.
5. Us. Union Pacific Railroad Company Il
Batch, 4gS and his ruling on this point was af-
hrmed on appeal in Ss y. e., Bro. But If there
were trust. as claimed, the administration of
laws relating to trusts is the peculiar province
OF Courts OF Equity. IL IL no par. OF the fUnc-
tons OF Congress under the Constitution
THE JURISDICTION OF CONGRESS.
1t is further urged that the judgmen. OF i'm
jurisdiction of the House; that the House OF
Congress may investigate and call upon The
Courts when so authorized, as in the present
Act, to perform the judicial part of the work
by enforcing the requirement of the Commits
sioners. But there is no such Limitation in the
language of the Court, viii be seen by reex-
amluing the passages quoted. On the contrary
the want OF power IN the House to punish Is
grounoed on the want of power to investigate At
all. II is directly said in the case cited that the
House may punish for contempt in certain
specified cases wherein the power is conferred
by the Constitution, or when necessary TO the
proper execution Of powers expressly conferred
And the Court, with reference 10 those in
sta lces, as we have seen says in terms :.
" Whether the power of punishment in either
House by line and imprisonment goes beyond
this or not, we are sure that no person can be
punished for contunacy Ms a witness before
either House. unless his testimony is required
in 4 matter into which that House has iurisdic-
ton 70 inquire, and We feel equally sure that
neither OF these bodies possesses the general
power OF making inquiry into the private affairs
ofthe citizen" Kilbourn vs. Thompson. Jos T.
s. $50 That was case, like this, wherein the
House was seeking to inquire into the private
affairs OF the debtor, sesking to ascertain what
that debtor bad done with his money, some Of
Shich he held ss 4 depository OF the United
States.
The decision was not put upon the ground
that the House could not i'll any case punish for
contempt, but on the ground that the House IN
cases IKE this had no authority to
make the inquiry at all and conse-
quenty there could be no punishment tor con
tempt either by the House or any other body
or tribunal. Under the Act new in question
Congress has undertaken to authorize a Com
mission TO make inquiry into the private affairs
OF It's creditor into the purpose Tor which the
debtor appropriated its own funds-which the
Supreme Court in the case cited says it has no
power TO do, and the Commission Is authorized
to call upon the Courts 20 aid il IL its unlawful
inquiry. The Court is not called upon TO act
IL any judicial proceeding or investigation
pending before it, or before any other Court in
the discharge of its judicial functions or any
mater ancillary to the exercise OF its judicisl
functions. There Is no case or controversy st
all pending before It OF which the proceeding
attempted 10 be authorized is a part or 10
which It IS ancillary. or il any way pertinent
THE LEGISLATIVE AND JUDICIAL RovKgs IEpE-
PENDENT.
1t does not appear to Us that it is contemplated
By the Act that the Court in the investigation
provided for, when called upon to aid the Com
mission, shah inquire beyond the point whether
the question asked is within tbs scope of the
broad field OF inquiry prescribed And SO the
Commissioners claim, and hey have conducted
their investigation on that theory. for they in
sist that they are not bound by any rules OF
evidence, or other principles Of law, observed
by Courts of justice, and by which the latter are
guided and controlled in the i-scertsinmeut OF
facts in The course Of ordinary judicial proceed
lngS. II TINS be The correct view the COur. il
expected to compel an answer Irrespective o.
any other consideratigns Even quest ms
eliminating the witness Gre to lie answered the
only protection TO the party being that his
answers shall rot be used against him in d
criminal prosecutiol-e protection of but little
avail to any party who should disclose criminal
acts upon which IN Indictment might be found,
and should indicate upon compusion other
sources of evidence, by means Of which the acts
disclosed can DO proved. And such acts NAY
also constitute onenses under the laws Of the
state, against which Congress cSn offer nc i'm
munity. he ,urt IS therefore, called upon 70
compel. under process Of contempt, an answer
to auy question winch the Commission sees liz
to ask within the scope ofthe inquiry attempted
to b. authorized by the Act. II this be So the
Court is SIMPLY made An instrument By this act
IL the hands OF the Commission 20 execute its
uuregulHted aud unrestricted viii. The O0uTt
is made the ministerial agent Of the Commission
10 perform its benests whenever @ wit
mesa refuses 10 respond to question, OF
pfDQutC papers WtLnlu Inc rHL1Ge o.
the authority attempted 70 be given by the
statute. The Judicial Department OF the Gov
eminent is simply made By this Act IN adjunct
to the legislative Department IN the exercise Of
it, political aud legislative functions and Row
ers to execute its Commands; and that, too IN s
matter into waich Congress under the decision
cited, has no jurisdiction whatever to inquire.
know OF no power in Congress TO thus render
the Judicial Department subordinate or gncil-
larry TO The Legislative and EZecu i've Depart
ments Of the Government, or TO either OF them.
II there g any one proposition imnut8bly es-
tablished, I Ia supposed IL TO be that the Judi
Ciary Department is absolutely independent Of
the other departments of the Government -tha.
It cannot be called upon 70 act S part sabordi-
nate 10 any other department or 70 Commits
sion armed with exaspeTating inQuisitorial Pow
ga over private affairs, unlimited by any con
sideTations other than its own unreguIeted dis
cretion And 80 understand the authorities 70
BE-. The functions Of the Judges of the Court
Of the United States are strictly and exclusiYely
judicial. They cannot. therefore, &c called
upon to advise the Precedent ID any Interpreta
tion OF law or 70 act as Commissioners in cases
of pensions or other like proceedings" e 9to
Con. Sec. l7y7, and cases cited.)
The Court IN this instance is called upon
not 10 exercise its 0rdioary powers IN the sc,
ministyation OF justice, but 30 assist Congress in
the exercise Of its deliberat!ve. legislative and
political pOgeTs-to aid 1t by Irregular and eI
traorcin2Ty, not - say unprecedented, means
in the pursuit OF information. To act as It's
agent in matters wholly foreign TO the functions
of the judiciary.
IN my JuGEMCnt. therefore. IeflscD Blu tDt
authorities cited establish beyond reasonable
grounds Tor controversy the proposition thai
there is no lawful authority in the Commission
ers to compel answers 20 the various questions
propOunded and Set out in their petition, or All
OF them which the respondent refused - an
sTer. Nor esn the Courts be lawfully required
10 compel answers thereto.
concur In the order made discha7giDg The
order 20 show cause.
Judge Sabin's Opinion.
IN announcing my concurrence - the opin
ions OF the Circuit Justice and the Circuit Judg,
in This matter, do not deem It necessary 80 re
view at any length the questions by them so abb!
and satisfactorily discussed and decided. Il
this application TO the Court 10 issue its EubpeuS
and compel answers 10 be made 70 the various
questions propOunded, the Court is called upoI
10 exercise no Judicial function or power. uuies
Il be the very slight duty OF determining whethe
or not the questions prop0unded are within Ia.